Married Priests: From West to East

[Bishop_Gavrilo]

It is futile to try to argue against Duane1966 who uses a problematic translation of a problematic text and interprets it outside our holy Eastern Orthodox tradition.

Duane1966 wrongly believes the tradition is the sole texts of the dozens and dozens writers, who were not without fault (even much valued St. Augustine made several mistakes). That is because Duane1966 is approaching the texts as a Catholic. Eastern Orthodoxy believes the texts of the canons and the texts of our beloved fathers are carried on and interpreted (and they do need interpretation) by the living tradition of our bishops. They are those who are charged with preserving our faith, in them is the Church, in them is entrusted the continuation of the work of our Apostles.

So, my dear brothers seeking honest knowledge of ecclesiastical practice of pure and blessed marital relationships of our priests and deacons, if you want to see the practice of time before Trullo, I suggest reading Canon XIII of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, namely:

“(…) nor must he be required at the time of ordination to refrain from lawful intercourse with his own wife.”

A great pity West threw away such a great gift of God to his beloved Church, the married priests. We Eastern bishops have nothing against men choosing celibacy and priesthood, but it was always the teaching of the Church that it is a choice. And over the centuries West took that choice away from thousands of men who had the call both to priesthood and to marriage. It is like telling a man that is hungry and thirsty: You may have a good drink or a god meal, I have both, but I will only give you one of those.

Do you know what St. John the Apostle preached most often, until the end? “Love each other!”

+Gavrilo

 

[Duane1966]

Despite your condescending remarks to the contrary, I did in fact read Ambrosiaster quite well enough the first time. The arrangement of his argument draws a strong logical connection between continence and the celebration of the Eucharist. Otherwise he would not cite the need to offer the sacrifice at least twice a week in rural areas (and presumably more often in urban areas) in conjunction with the old testament practice of ritual purification if there were no presupposition in his mind that priests ought to abstain from conjugal relations for at least a certain period of time before celebrating the Eucharist. That the need to celebrate the mysteries frequently made it an expectation that some priests should have to abstain perpetually in some locales (which is simply the logical unfolding of his argument) does not, however, make it a universal practice.

Three things. 1.) If I came off as condescending, I am sorry, it was not my intent. 2.) Ambrosiaster quite clearly ties continence to two things; the needs of the ordained to serve every day in the church, not just for the Eucharistic sacrifice, but for baptisms as well. He ties physically being in the church with the need for purification as well, as shown here:

Indeed, it was because they were not expected to go frequently to the temple and had a private life that the** concession [to use their marital rights] was granted to the ancients** *. If the Apostle directs laymen to abstain temporarily in order to attend to prayer, how much more for deacons and priests, who must pray day and night for the people entrusted to them?*Again, he ties the ancients not being in the temple everyday as the reason why they could practice their marital rights, and contrasts that with why the ordained of his day must practice continence. 3.) You did not address the next quote of his, where he specifically says that the priests do not have any intercourse. He specifically says any, with no qualifications. Why is that?

Ancyra, I’m afraid to say that running with St. Martin’s mistranslation is a serious stretch. As far as I know, the manuscript tradition as well as the ancient epitome of canon X contradicts St. Martin’s mistaken translation. It was very common in antiquity for people to try to “fix” difficult texts in order to create a reading which made more sense to them, and in that way, that St. Martin likely attempted to “fix” the difficulty caused by the canon is far more plausible than the possibility that the received tradition preserved a wrong and far more difficult reading (difficult in the sense that it indeed gives a dispensation contrary to the universal norm that ordination is an impediment to marriage). Bringing up St. Martin’s mistranslation only further hurts your argument (a form of logique du chaudron), as suggesting two mutually exclusive readings for the canon (Van Espen’s and St. Martin’s) can only give the astute reader the impression that you are simply haphazardly grasping for any alternative reading of the canon which does not confirm our understanding of it.

1.) He was ordained in Palestine, so he would certainly know what the norm is for the East at that time. To mistranslate it knowing what the practices of the East were at that time would be a purposeful mistranslation. Are you saying that is what he did?

2.) The fact that Justinian writing 26 years before him, stating the exact same thing lends credence to St. Martin, and hurts your argument.

Can you show me any writings from before Trullo in favor of your position?

Again my apologies for coming off as condescending.

Duane

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

It is futile to try to argue against Duane1966 who uses a problematic translation of a problematic text and interprets it outside our holy Eastern Orthodox tradition.

Duane1966 wrongly believes the tradition is the sole texts of the dozens and dozens writers, who were not without fault (even much valued St. Augustine made several mistakes). That is because Duane1966 is approaching the texts as a Catholic. Eastern Orthodoxy believes the texts of the canons and the texts of our beloved fathers are carried on and interpreted (and they do need interpretation) by the living tradition of our bishops. They are those who are charged with preserving our faith, in them is the Church, in them is entrusted the continuation of the work of our Apostles.

So, my dear brothers seeking honest knowledge of ecclesiastical practice of pure and blessed marital relationships of our priests and deacons, if you want to see the practice of time before Trullo, I suggest reading Canon XIII of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, namely:

“(…) nor must he be required at the time of ordination to refrain from lawful intercourse with his own wife.”

A great pity West threw away such a great gift of God to his beloved Church, the married priests. We Eastern bishops have nothing against men choosing celibacy and priesthood, but it was always the teaching of the Church that it is a choice. And over the centuries West took that choice away from thousands of men who had the call both to priesthood and to marriage. It is like telling a man that is hungry and thirsty: You may have a good drink or a god meal, I have both, but I will only give you one of those.

Do you know what St. John the Apostle preached most often, until the end? “Love each other!”

+Gavrilo

Thank you again, Vladyka, for your enlightening words. I would simply add the caveat that the opinions of Duanne1966 don’t represent the views of Western Catholicism (let alone Catholicism as a whole embracing the tradition of the West and the tradition of the East), but simply the views of a handful of theologians within the West who wrongly argue against the ancient practice of the married (and sexually active) priesthood. Many such folks make the arguments based off of an unfortunate book that was published by Ignatius Press - a prominent Roman Catholic publishing company in the U.S.

Also, historically the West had its reasons for enforcing the discipline of an all-celibate clergy - despite the fact that that discipline itself has been ignored by bishops and popes from time to time. The reasons at the time were valid reasons. I would argue, however, that it’s about time the West re-evaluate its reasons and consider the possibility of once again embracing married clergy. There are already a number of married Western priests, most of whom came into Roman Catholicism through the Anglican Ordinariate.

 

[friardchips]

St. Paul says we cannot serve our Creator in the full way one can when preserved for Him only.

Saints in the Roman Catholic Church who experienced that mystical union with the Merciful Heart of our Lord would not have attained such a state of intimate sanctity from extra grace had their attention, and heart, been divided.

There is a very important document, which says each Church is to love their own traditions and to hold them close to their hearts, so let’s keep our wonderful Roman Catholic heritage the way it is; after all, it is not the number of priests that is important, but the quality of their inner disposition.

Christians are to emulate she "who became the Church" (St. Francis of Assisi), Our Holy Mother, whose divinely imbued virginally sanctified Immaculate Conception is the very mould, the womb, in which we can be nourished, thus partaking of the Heavenly mysteries in a mystical manner only lived by those who enter into deeper communion in the relationship between the Holy Mother and her Son. So, after married priests, what next: monks and nuns marrying?! I don’t think so. Priests, monks, friars, nuns all belong to the Creator alone, in body and Spirit.

Second best is not an option with the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[RyanBlack]

St. Paul says we cannot serve our Creator in the full way one can when preserved for Him only.

Saints in the Roman Catholic Church who experienced that mystical union with the Merciful Heart of our Lord would not have attained such a state of intimate sanctity from extra grace had their attention, and heart, been divided.

There is a very important document, which says each Church is to love their own traditions and to hold them close to their hearts, so let’s keep our wonderful Roman Catholic heritage the way it is; after all, it is not the number of priests that is important, but the quality of their inner disposition.

Christians are to emulate she "who became the Church" (St. Francis of Assisi), Our Holy Mother, whose divinely imbued virginally sanctified Immaculate Conception is the very mould, the womb, in which we can be nourished, thus partaking of the Heavenly mysteries in a mystical manner only lived by those who enter into deeper communion in the relationship between the Holy Mother and her Son. So, after married priests, what next: monks and nuns marrying?! I don’t think so. Priests, monks, friars, nuns all belong to the Creator alone, in body and Spirit.

Second best is not an option with the Roman Catholic Church.

Perhaps you should be a bit more careful with your remarks, which come across as being contemptuous towards married priests. The Catholic Church honors the married priesthood in the Catechism, and a number of particular churches in communion with Rome have married priests. Also, your comments about married monks and nun do nothing to help your argument; look in those churches that have married priests and you will see that they have maintained the traditions of monasticism.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

St. Paul says we cannot serve our Creator in the full way one can when preserved for Him only.

Saints in the Roman Catholic Church who experienced that mystical union with the Merciful Heart of our Lord would not have attained such a state of intimate sanctity from extra grace had their attention, and heart, been divided.

There is a very important document, which says each Church is to love their own traditions and to hold them close to their hearts, so let’s keep our wonderful Roman Catholic heritage the way it is; after all, it is not the number of priests that is important, but the quality of their inner disposition.

Christians are to emulate she "who became the Church" (St. Francis of Assisi), Our Holy Mother, whose divinely imbued virginally sanctified Immaculate Conception is the very mould, the womb, in which we can be nourished, thus partaking of the Heavenly mysteries in a mystical manner only lived by those who enter into deeper communion in the relationship between the Holy Mother and her Son. So, after married priests, what next: monks and nuns marrying?! I don’t think so. Priests, monks, friars, nuns all belong to the Creator alone, in body and Spirit.

Second best is not an option with the Roman Catholic Church.

I don’t know how to take this comment. It betrays not only a great ignorance of the married priesthood (and yes, there are married priests in the Roman Catholic Church), but a great ignorance of the dignity of the SACRAMENT of marriage itself. I would stress that celibacy is not considered in the Tradition of the Church to be a Sacrament.

John Paul II’s excellent Theology of the Body points out that Paul only shares his preference that all remain celibate, but he does not in any way disparage the Sacrament of Matrimony. As a married man, I find it highly insulting that there are folks out there who believe I can’t have a deep and intense relationship with my Lord, Creator and God simply because I am married. Believe me, I simply experience the love of God in a different way than I would had I chosen a celibate vocation. That difference, however, does not also imply or necessitate a lesser degree of that relationship. Marriage is not a “second best” vocation, nor is the married priesthood “second best” to a celibate priesthood. If you can’t fully appreciate the beauty and dignity of the Sacrament of Marriage as a path to holiness, then you certainly cannot appreciate the dignity of forgoing that Sacrament “for the sake of the Kingdom.” Celibacy and Marriage are complimentary vocations. They are most certainly not opposed.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I don’t know how to take this comment. It betrays not only a great ignorance of the married priesthood (and yes, there are married priests in the Roman Catholic Church), but a great ignorance of the dignity of the SACRAMENT of marriage itself. I would stress that celibacy is not considered in the Tradition of the Church to be a Sacrament.

John Paul II’s excellent Theology of the Body points out that Paul only shares his preference that all remain celibate, but he does not in any way disparage the Sacrament of Matrimony. As a married man, I find it highly insulting that there are folks out there who believe I can’t have a deep and intense relationship with my Lord, Creator and God simply because I am married. Believe me, I simply experience the love of God in a different way than I would had I chosen a celibate vocation. That difference, however, does not also imply or necessitate a lesser degree of that relationship. Marriage is not a “second best” vocation, nor is the married priesthood “second best” to a celibate priesthood. If you can’t fully appreciate the beauty and dignity of the Sacrament of Marriage as a path to holiness, then you certainly cannot appreciate the dignity of forgoing that Sacrament “for the sake of the Kingdom.” Celibacy and Marriage are complimentary vocations. They are most certainly not opposed.

Philip,
In my opinion, it is a protestant mindset that has infected sections of the Catholic Church - including many in the hierarchy. This either/or is in opposition to the ‘both/and’ Tradition of our Fathers in Faith.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Philip,
In my opinion, it is a protestant mindset that has infected sections of the Catholic Church - including many in the hierarchy. This either/or is in opposition to the ‘both/and’ Tradition of our Fathers in Faith.

Amen!

 

[friardchips]

Perhaps you should be a bit more careful with your remarks, which come across as being contemptuous towards married priests. The Catholic Church honors the married priesthood in the Catechism, and a number of particular churches in communion with Rome have married priests. Also, your comments about married monks and nun do nothing to help your argument; look in those churches that have married priests and you will see that they have maintained the traditions of monasticism.

It is not that I have a problem with married priests, it is that I don’t like members from other churches trying to spread their own preferences via propaganda.

You mistake a love for the RCC for wanting others to do things the way we do them. I don’t go onto Orthodox websites and start spouting RCC ideas on theirs, and neither do I do this on other Church websites under the Catholic banner, so I am merely stating what I believe to be true in defense of our own tradition in opposition to those who think they can tell other’s how to do things, and I am putting the reasons why, which I truly believe.

 

[RyanBlack]

It is not that I have a problem with married priests, it is that I don’t like members from other churches trying to spread their own preferences via propaganda.

You mistake a love for the RCC for wanting others to do things the way we do them. I don’t go onto Orthodox websites and start spouting RCC ideas on theirs, and neither do I do this on other Church websites under the Catholic banner, so I am merely stating what I believe to be true in defense of our own tradition in opposition to those who think they can tell other’s how to do things, and I am putting the reasons why, which I truly believe.

You did write “Second best is not an option with the Roman Catholic Church.” Do you really expect people of traditions with married priests (including most Eastern Catholics) not to take that as disparaging married priests?

 

[friardchips]

Philip,
In my opinion, it is a protestant mindset that has infected sections of the Catholic Church - including many in the hierarchy. This either/or is in opposition to the ‘both/and’ Tradition of our Fathers in Faith.

Again, if you read Church documents you will see that each member of their own church is to love their church. Please don’t listen to the other posters who say it is because I think they need to do things a certain way. I don’t. The document which I’ve been trying to find, and will find and post, clearly says that we are to respect and love our traditions and our churches, but there are those on here who are trying to tell people what we are doing wrong in the RCC, and I don’t think it is their place. If you think I am not allowed to speak up for the RCC and instead that Roman Catholics should be muzzled while everyone tells us how we should do things then I am surprised by your thinking.

 

[friardchips]

You did write “Second best is not an option with the Roman Catholic Church.” Do you really expect people of traditions with married priests (including most Eastern Catholics) not to take that as disparaging married priests?

It is what I believe and felt the need to express it as a response to others who were trying to attack the RCC position on priestly sanctity which you may be surprised to learn that some Roman catholics hold very dear to our hearts. IMO, any other position is second best and wouldn’t change it for the world. However, I also believe that other Churches/rites are to do what the official church documents say and stick to their own traditions unless papal authority says otherwise.

 

[friardchips]

I don’t know how to take this comment. It betrays not only a great ignorance of the married priesthood (and yes, there are married priests in the Roman Catholic Church), but a great ignorance of the dignity of the SACRAMENT of marriage itself. I would stress that celibacy is not considered in the Tradition of the Church to be a Sacrament.

John Paul II’s excellent Theology of the Body points out that Paul only shares his preference that all remain celibate, but he does not in any way disparage the Sacrament of Matrimony. As a married man, I find it highly insulting that there are folks out there who believe I can’t have a deep and intense relationship with my Lord, Creator and God simply because I am married. Believe me, I simply experience the love of God in a different way than I would had I chosen a celibate vocation. That difference, however, does not also imply or necessitate a lesser degree of that relationship. Marriage is not a “second best” vocation, nor is the married priesthood “second best” to a celibate priesthood. If you can’t fully appreciate the beauty and dignity of the Sacrament of Marriage as a path to holiness, then you certainly cannot appreciate the dignity of forgoing that Sacrament “for the sake of the Kingdom.” Celibacy and Marriage are complimentary vocations. They are most certainly not opposed.

I do appreciate it but not as priests in the Roman Catholic Church. IMO, they are two different vocations: one is direct marriage to the Creator and one is marriage to the women who are both in union with the Creator. There are better ways of wording it, I’m sure. But yes, I believe the RCC has got this right already. However, if there weren’t those who were trying to tell us what to do and what to change on this thread in such a way that seemed a bit rude then I wouldn’t have jumped to the defense of our beloved church. I do believe that other Churches/rites should hold to their own traditions which all other Catholics are to respect unless papal authority says that changes are to happen to which all must adhere.

 

[RyanBlack]

It is what I believe and felt the need to express it as a response to others who were trying to attack the RCC position on priestly sanctity which you may be surprised to learn that some Roman catholics hold very dear to our hearts. IMO, any other position is second best and wouldn’t change it for the world. However, I also believe that other Churches/rites are to do what the official church documents say and stick to their own traditions unless papal authority says otherwise.

No, I’m not surprised that some Roman Catholics hold priestly celibacy in very high esteem. On the other hand, it should come as no surprise to you that Eastern Christians would take offense to being told that our traditions are “second best.”

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

It is not that I have a problem with married priests, it is that I don’t like members from other churches trying to spread their own preferences via propaganda.

You mistake a love for the RCC for wanting others to do things the way we do them. I don’t go onto Orthodox websites and start spouting RCC ideas on theirs, and neither do I do this on other Church websites under the Catholic banner, so I am merely stating what I believe to be true in defense of our own tradition in opposition to those who think they can tell other’s how to do things, and I am putting the reasons why, which I truly believe.

There are a number of big issues here; not least of which is that you are presenting the Roman discipline of a celibate clergy as the Catholic tradition. Not only that, you are presenting it as somehow superior to the married clergy and to marriage itself.

The Catholic Church is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is one of 21+ sui iuris Churches that, together as a communion of Churches, make up the Catholic Church. The Eastern Catholic Churches, all of which are in communion with the Roman Church, have a very long and ancient history of admitting married men to the priesthood. Many of these married men - along with their wives and families - have provided a great, and oftentimes heroic service to the flocks they minister to. The good Orthodox bishop, who has graced us with his presence, is simply providing a voice for the Eastern tradition here that is held by both Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, in re. married clergy. He is, therefore, not just representing Orthodox ideas, but also ideas and traditions held dear by Eastern Catholics as well!

 

[friardchips]

It is provocative to start a thread called: ‘From West to East’, and then when someone from the West defends her position, those from the East jump down their throats.

 

[friardchips]

There are a number of big issues here; not least of which is that you are presenting the Roman discipline of a celibate clergy as the Catholic tradition. Not only that, you are presenting it as somehow superior to the married clergy and to marriage itself.

The Catholic Church is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is one of 21+ sui iuris Churches that, together as a communion of Churches, make up the Catholic Church. The Eastern Catholic Churches, all of which are in communion with the Roman Church, have a very long and ancient history of admitting married men to the priesthood. Many of these married men - along with their wives and families - have provided a great, and oftentimes heroic service to the flocks they minister to. The good Orthodox bishop, who has graced us with his presence, is simply providing a voice for the Eastern tradition here that is held by both Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, in re. married clergy. He is, therefore, not just representing Orthodox ideas, but also ideas and traditions held dear by Eastern Catholics as well!

There have already been threads on this. I am going to have to find the document on one of the past threads before I post again. Thanks.

 

[oliver927]

The good Orthodox bishop, who has graced us with his presence, is simply providing a voice for the Eastern tradition here that is held by both Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, in re. married clergy. He is, therefore, not just representing Orthodox ideas, but also ideas and traditions held dear by Eastern Catholics as well!

I could be wrong but I don’t think Eastern Catholics think it “A great pity West threw away such a great gift of God to his beloved Church, the married priests.” (see post #41). Saying that the West “threw away” the married priesthood certainly does not seem to imply (at least to me) that he thinks very highly of the West generally not having married priests.

 

[friardchips]

I could be wrong but I don’t think Eastern Catholics think it “A great pity West threw away such a great gift of God to his beloved Church, the married priests.” (see post #41). Saying that the West “threw away” the married priesthood certainly does not seem to imply (at least to me) that he thinks very highly of the West generally not having married priests.

 

[JimmyG88]

It’s a church rule that Roman Cathoilc priests remain ‘celibate’, a relatively recent rule in terms of church history. As such it could be changed at the strike of a pen without any doctrinal problem whatsoever. I find it interesting that secular clergy promise celibacy and not chastity. This leads me to believe that the original ordinance against marriage had more to do with church property and inheritance rather than the morals of the clergy.